U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez

(D) George Stern

(R) Sheri Davis

50%↑

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Manny Rutinel

(D) Yadira Caraveo

50%

40%↑

30%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
September 27, 2006 11:19 PM UTC

We're Not Satan

  • 96 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

James “SpongeDob” Dobson has challenged congress over not responding to Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez’s remarks that President Bush is “the devil.” Colorado Media Matters reports on the exchange, including the delightful tidbit that Dobson actually said the word “pantywaist.”

Dobson also said that Satan uses many different means of communication, including “everything from magazines to television to university professors.” But not blogs. Take that, Satan!

Comments

96 thoughts on “We’re Not Satan

  1.   What can he possibly expect from this corrupt and ineffective GOP controlled Congress? 
      BTW, I wonder if he would object to a “friendly amendment” to expand such a condemnation resolution to address not only Hugo Chavez comparing Bush to the Devil but Jerry Fallwell comparing Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to Lucifer.

    1. Doesn’t SpongeDob uses magazines, television and professors to communicate with the masses?  I believe he also uses the radio and telephones to communicate with his folk of followers. 

      To call for the assasination of foreign leaders, and the to condemn the US for not responding to some right-wingers hit list is 100% nuts!

      Sorry Dobson, but the US military is not the Christian Army under your command. 

      1. And how many people have died under the direct cause of the foreign and domestic policies of the Bush Administration?

        I don’t remember reading the part in the bible where Jesus advocates for death, destruction and denial.

        1. that comment exposes him/her. What thinking, conscientious, educated, respectful and respectable individual can countenance such an ignorant statement. It reminds me of the many ignorant statements from this individual as watch this debilitating, ruinous, thieving administration vreate a situation it will take generations to undo and pay for.

          God help gecko and those who call him/her friend.

          God help America…..and may the true “wolves in sheep clothing” be exposed for the hypocrites and frauds that they are.

    1. What’s up with this thread? The personal attacks against Dr. Dobson are pathetic. What’s the big deal any how? The Venezuelan President’s remarks should be attacked by all Americans. All you do is blame President Bush for all the problems of the world because of what he stands for. And then you send your attack dogs out on everyone who defends the President. Thank God that it was W. who was at the helm during 9-11. Who knows where your precious Gore would have us now! 

      1. There is a reason the comments are so left leaning.  Many of my friends who have posted before w/ a conservative message have been banished from posting on Col Pols.

        In fact one said if you haven’t been blocked from posting then the things you say are not effective.  Anyway, if you never hear from me again you know why.

          1. You don’t have to worry Aristotle.  Your rabid leftest dribble will not be sensored here.  Only those who write from the perspective of a conservative.

            You haven’t noticed how conservatives have been dropping off the site?  It is by design.  After all why would the Democrats provide a forum for the other point of view to be heard?

            It’s ok.  It is a privately held company with the backers remaining anonymous.  It is well within their right and probably in their charter as well to sensor.

            I just didn’t want you all to think the echo chamber had any semblence of balance.

            1. that the cons were leaving because there hasn’t been good news for them for months. The special session took the wind out of their sails, BWB is sinking fast and apparently taking many R’s with him… I wouldn’t come to this site if it bummed me out either.

              Of course if the R’s storm back in November you’ll all come out of the woodwork then.

          1. I guess all those that have been booted really can’t argue with you now can they?  They just disappear.  When Col Pols used to be on the old system I criticized them for tracking IP addresses.  I was no longer able to log in.  When you switched to the new system – I could log back in.

            But, I suppose when I disappear Ari and others will just think I am depressed.  After all their superior intelligence is no match for a different point of view.

            I suspect that is why this blog and the people posting have been sounding more and more like an echo chamber.

            When I posted about the IP addresses – Alva Adams posted something to refute me – then poof.  No more Dark Horse.

            1. Not a day goes by that conservatives don’t post here. And oh yeah, I just lord it over everyone here…not that this is about me, though you seem to want to go there…

            2. We do not, and NEVER have, banned anyone, at any time, because of their opinions.

              The only time we have ever blocked a commenter is for posting rude and malicious comments or for posting rumors that they do not back up with facts in order to smear someone.

              1. Do you ever explain that to the banished?  The only rude (translate that to dissenting opinion Pols didn’t agree with) thing I posted was that Col Pols was tracking IP addresses.  Then Alva Adams said not true.  Suddenly my ip address was blocked from posting.

                I couldn’t even point out the irony that if you weren’t tracking IP Addresses how did you know to block mine?

                I can point to many rude thing said from the lefties that have no basis in fact yet they are still posting…

                Hmmmm…

                1. “I can point to many rude thing said from the lefties that have no basis in fact yet they are still posting…”

                  Point to one. Remember, you will have to show that the posting does indeed follow what CPols said (which is a bit different from what you said): that it’s either a “rude and malicious comment or … a rumor that they do not back up with facts in order to smear someone.” Just one from a “leftie” will do.

                  1. If we were blocking you from commenting, wouldn’t it follow that you probably wouldn’t be here ranting about it? Either that, or the software we use that would block someone doesn’t work very well.

            3. This is hilarious, you have no credibility.

              Here’s a thought – this site’s goal, other than to be a forum of political discussion, is to attract traffic.  Why would they ban anybody from posting here unless they were being intentionally disruptive and/or violating specific rules of conduct?

              The site is known as one of the few that attracts debate from both sides of the aisle, and I’m sure they like to have a mix of commentary.

              If you think the people operating this site are somehow part of your bizzare culture war universe, then strap your tinfoil hat back on and please do keep spouting your conspiracy theories – it’s pretty entertaining.

              This place is driven by discussion of state politics and elections – not ideological battles. 

        1. Seriously. How much power does your side need to have before you get over this persecution complex? “Oh dear, all we have is the House, the Senate, the Presidency, and the Supreme Court! Why can’t we control ColoradoPols.com?”

      2. Dobson is an idiot. Why would you decry attacks on one person and then attack someone else in the same breath, not only is that hypocritical, but it is also childish. Why should we defend Bush when the republican attack machine still rants against Clinton? If a country should stand united behind its president were you crying foul whenever Clinton was attacked? I bet I know one place we would not be if Gore were elected. I’ll give you a hint, it is in the middle east, and the torture and violence there is worse now than when we went in.

        1. Come on? Dobson an idiot? How about a prophet? A psychologist and an author, Doctoral graduate from USC. You should be such an idiot!  Toodles your fangs are showing. The attack on the President from a foreign leader should have been called on by someone. And you are right, we would not have been in the Middle East since Gore would have had us reduced to rubble. 

          1. Just because I didnt totally object to you posting questionable at best scientific material in the other thread doesnt mean I am going to lay down every time you post something that is completely objectional. Dobson has been repudiated by the APA, he runs an organization that advocates child abuse, and his organization should have its non profit status taken away for its interjections into politics. By the way you attacked Gore and you did it again. Where did your ability to know that Gore would have left us in ruins come from. The last time I checked the WTC is still in ruins. Our constitution is in tatters thanks to Bush and Co, and the real reason why we went in to Iraq is so Rumsfeld could play out his thesis.

        2. Dobson is a bigoted idiot.  Ken Salazar had it right when he questioned whether Dobson might be the anti-Christ.  I only wish Salazar hadn’t apologized for it. 

          1. Hey, I agree with you most of the time; but that was just obviously a mistake on Salazar’s part.  Of course James Dobson isn’t the anti-Christ.  He is a misguided religious leader.  The world has plenty of them.  He just happens to have more power than most.

            1. You are right there are a lot of misguided religious leaders, and he is definitely one of them. If he truly obliged by his religion than I am sure he would not have a message of hate.

      3. Bush did absolutely nothing during 9/11 except sit in a classroom pondering whether he should run away or continue his parade of pretending to like children.  We all know what happened.

        Bush has not kept his promise to track down the evil doers.

        Bush has failed to end terrorism, but rather has engulfed the middle-east spreading hatred for America.

        Bush has done nothing to secure the borders since.

        Bush, has caused more damage than any President in US History.  He will be the cause of another attack on American soil.  He will be remembered as the “decider” who left America vulnerable, open to attack, and with Americans living in fear and weak in the knees.  While diplomats would have rallied the world, and the American citizens tore the country into two, and put the world at odds with us.

        This has nothing to do with being a conservative or liberal.  This has to do with acknowledging the truth and history. 

        1. Bush did absolutely nothing during 9/11 except sit in a classroom pondering whether he should run away or continue his parade of pretending to like children.  We all know what happened.

          From a Michael Moore movie? come on you’re smarter than that…

          Bush has not kept his promise to track down the evil doers.

          Excuse me? Bin Laden maybe but I think most of the “evil doers” are history.

          Bush has failed to end terrorism, but rather has engulfed the middle-east spreading hatred for America.

          It’s Defense Big Blue- pro-active defense. If we did nothing-we’d see first hand what terror is on our shores. We caughty a glimpse- a horrid glimpse- remember? Well I do and I went to school with a few that were killed 9-11. 

          Bush has done nothing to secure the borders since.

          I’ll semi agree with that. I disagree with the Mexican Border problem. But not about National Security and airport security. I think the admin has done a great job. And also with the Patriot Act.

          Bush, has caused more damage than any President in US History.
          (not true)

            He will be the cause of another attack on American soil.  He will be remembered as the “decider” who left America vulnerable, open to attack, and with Americans living in fear and weak in the knees.

          What is your solution- John Kerry? John McCain? What would they do differently and how would it help?

            While diplomats would have rallied the world, and the American citizens tore the country into two, and put the world at odds with us.

          Who are these diplomats? France was in bed with Saddam. That was their meal ticket? Come on!

          This has nothing to do with being a conservative or liberal.  This has to do with acknowledging the truth and history. 

          (albeit a view that is narrow and unsubstantial)

          Sorry…

          1. Bush is not a diplomat, but rather a Beaucrat.  He is single minded, with one goal in mind.  His administration is full of beaucrats, who have the horse blinders on.  Cheney has said he invaded Iraq again, and not change a thing. These people do not know how to admit mistakes, or make changes.  They cannot see the whole playing field, because they deny all views, be it opposing or supporting unless it’s identical to their plan of attack. 

            As much as Republicans love to bash France, and say “I’m eating Freedom Fries and drinking wine from Australia,” that’s not a solution to an international problem.  That’s child like.  The Bush administration had lots of options on the table, but they neglected and ignored all but one.  The same plan put forward by  Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz in the early 90’s. 

      4.   We blame Shrub for the problems of the world because he CREATED those problems. 
          Oh yes, Shrub performance on 9/11 is memorable….. Watching him slowly turning the pages in that book, “My Pet Goat,” while Andrew Card kept repeating, “America is under attack.” 
          Who can forgot that blank look Shrub’s face that day! Then there was his heroic flight across the country (first Lousiana, then Nebraska, and finally back to D.C.), all the time with KIarl Rover and photographer taking pix of our courageous hero.
          I’m convinced Dan Quayle would have handled 9/11 better if  only because Lloyd Bensen’s tongue-lashing during the ’88 debate probably shock some minimal amount of sense into him…..And Marilyn Quayle would have taken control on 9/11 if Dan had been president.

      5. Yeah, thank God W and Condi were “at the helm”.  Maybe next time Condi gets a memo that is titled “Bin Laden determined to attack in US” she could, you know, maybe do something about it.  I know it sounds crazy, just a suggestion.

    1. If that is not one of the more conservative papers in the country, and they are the ones pointing out that the two left leaning congressmen coming out in Bush’s defense, that is amazing.

        1. about this being Rev. Moon’s paper.

          I remembered reading about this over the weekend but couldn’t find the original AP link. This was the first I found with google.

  2. Dobson just likes to get his name in the papers, maybe it makes him feel relavent.  The guy is a publicity hound just like most of the other practitioners of his sort of business.

    He’s basically a joke to thinking people.  That’s not to say that Christians aren’t intelligent – but the kind that tend to revere somebody that thinks Spongebob Squarepants is secretly attempting to make their children gay, well, do I have to say anything else?

    And Chronic Truth, I don’t care what the guy’s education is – the freakin’ Unabomber went to Harvard.  He’s a bigoted, close-minded moron that creates divisions instead of connections between people and tries to find ways to influence politics with his religious convictions.  That guy is no kind of Christian as I understand the word.

    1. Don’t let “chronic” (in the medical field that is less than a positive adjective)poison the debate. He/She is obviously an unenlightened, in denial, uneducated person who no doubt benefits from the war machine…making his/her rants immorally self serving.

      1. Chronic posted some very intelligent discussions surrounding the stem cell debate. I wouldn’t call his posts rants anymore than I would call your posts enlightened.

        1. But another discussion board that I post on regularly would have laughed him out of any debate on stem cell research. The only reason that I did not completely flip out over his posting is because he is stuck on his convictions. The debate would get nowhere. Let me put this another way. He put up so many strawmen there that an errant sprak would have burned this website to the ground. The links that he posted where areas where you could buy Intelligent design books. There were grounded in religious, dare I say it, fanaticism. Admittedly, my link was to an article from 2005. Not as proud of that as I would like to be, but it was from the University of Minnesota (if i remember correctly) which is quickly becoming a sort of proving ground for stem cell research. I dont mind the fact that he is religious, but arguing a topic on your personal religious beliefs puts the other person in a sysuphisian task of proving their point. In effect, it makes the debate unwinnable. He also sidestepped many of my question when I would directly address his points. I’ve been doing this online debate thing for a long time, and I have had my ass handed to me many a time, and the biggest truth I have learned from all of that debating is that you need to have strong scientific material backing up your point, or you will get crushed. A person’s beliefs are just that, and you can find anything online that proves your point, but if you really want to win a debate you dont get info from questionable sources, and you always address points another person puts out. The stem cell debate should have been focused around articles from medical journals, not from religious sites that have an agenda to push.

          1. Aren’t you supposed to be studying? 🙂

            My point was Chronic is a civil poster here who can speak on various subjects and defend his arguments (even if his sources are religious – it is up to the reader to determine that) and those people need to be encouraged rather than shunned.

            I agree with what Robin posts but his constant use of guerrilla posts on Iraq and Bush doesn’t help educate but rather they turn the audience away. 

            1. Chronic is overtly civil and subtly biting. I need to reread the thread for specific examples, but it is like someone who has to have the last word and that last word in their eyes makes their case.

              Sir Robin is rough around the edges and very passionate about Bush and Iraq and the whole bit. But that is not to say that that is not an effective way to get your point across (Double negative, I cant write properly for some reason). Sometimes civility leads to complacency. Yeah we were civil in the stem cell debate, but I felt my link was lacking and I didnt really challenge him on his, for reasons stated above. You should see me in some debates on the other site where I frequently post. The fur is flying and the language would make a sailor blush, but at its heart the debate is there and we get our points across. The posters on this site are limited so you dont get as much of a broad spectrum of debate styles, but as long as a person has content, I personally will read just about anything.

          2. I believe you just handed your hind quarters back to yourself with that explanation. I have never read such narrow minded, phony academic, garbage in my life. You said that you didn’t doubt the credibility of the source. I told you that I am not religious but I relate everything back to the source called the Bible. I then have very qualified sources in science, medicine, journalism, the arts, psychology ( by the way your comment about the APA and Dr. Dobson was hilarious. It turns out that Dobson took THEM to the woodshed over their unscientific “research” on homosexuality). I found in our initial debate that people came away with the thought that dialouge and respect were happening. And then the venom came out. You accused me of attacking Al Gore, when I said, I am grateful that he wasn’t the president during our hardest times. While at the same time you attacked with name calling Dr. Dobson (you called him an idiot) and other assorted names you spewed about the President. This is why liberalism is dying in this country. I used to be one- so I know. My aim on getting on this blog was that I am covering the campaigns in Colorado as a journalist. I was trying to find out what the pulse was out there for various social issues and in the races, and what do I find? Attacks on people who are actually doing things to help others. So I ask why? Do you have a pipe line into the facts that no one else has? Do you judge George W. Bush and question his character and integrity? That’s how I read your posts. You call Christians bigots for not wanting to have their children indoctorated into sexual orientation (as the Squarepants video attempts to say). I was speaking with another journalist last night and he said- “why do you even bother reasoning with people who are so narrow minded?” I think I should file the story of this blog encounter before I resort to the same tactics as you have in some of our encounters. You seemed like such a reasonable guy! 

            1. My point in complimenting the debate was that you guys kept it civil . . . which is pretty rare when an issue of religous fundamentalism is involved.

              Not to be cruel, but Toodles pretty much waxed the floor with you in terms of points made and defended.  I read every post, and you frequently dodged his most salient criticisms, constructed straw man arguements and tossed more herrings than a Japanese fisherman, and all your sources were of a religious nature.  Of course, the counter argument to that, made by religous people, is that science is somehow biased – but the whoel point of science is that it isn’t biased and rigorously cross-checks itself – but that point is lost on some.

              At any rate, if you enjjoyed debating him, then why are you annoyed that he doesn’t agree with you on other topics?

              And, though I felt you were unfortunately under the influence of “Doctor Dobson” (C’mon, are people out in the Springs really so impressed with a flippin’ doctorate?  I know PhDs that can barely navigate a parking garage  . . . and since ‘Dr. Dobson’ specializes in theological matters and Christianity, how does a psych degree add credibility to what he says?  If I get a degree in anthropology and start writing physics papers, citing the fact that I’m a ‘doctor,’ do I get more credit from the physics community?  Hell no . . .  it’s hero worship folks), the fact that you seem to uphold the Spongebob mania just shows me that you’re letting somebody else do your critical thinking for you.

              I appreciate that you’re civil, but if you honestly believe that a little cartoon sponge is an evil cypher out to “indoctrinate your children,” then I must admit that I can’t take anything that you say seriously.

              1. It’s just a waste of time to be reasonable with you people!

                My point in complimenting the debate was that you guys kept it civil . . . which is pretty rare when an issue of religous fundamentalism is involved.

                That’s right if you stand up for what is right and just you’re an idiot as I see posted on everything you guys say when you personally attack me. That goes a long way Ruby. 

                Not to be cruel, but Toodles pretty much waxed the floor with you in terms of points made and defended.
                I read every post, and you frequently dodged his most salient criticisms, constructed straw man arguements and tossed more herrings than a Japanese fisherman, and all your sources were of a religious nature.  Of course, the counter argument to that, made by religous people, is that science is somehow biased – but the whoel point of science is that it isn’t biased and rigorously cross-checks itself – but that point is lost on some.

                Actually the sources happened to be experts MD’s, scientists, psychologists (with credentials that would make a donkey cry), bioethic journalists, a bio chemist, a lawyer, and a cast of thousands who live a laboratory of hypothesis everyday. I have cited some of the sources. 

                At any rate, if you enjjoyed debating him, then why are you annoyed that he doesn’t agree with you on other topics?

                I’m annoyed at personal attacks and his claim that everyone is an idiot who doesn’t go along with the “progressives.” 

                And, though I felt you were unfortunately under the influence of “Doctor Dobson” (C’mon, are people out in the Springs really so impressed with a flippin’ doctorate?  I know PhDs that can barely navigate a parking garage  . . . and since ‘Dr. Dobson’ specializes in theological matters and Christianity, how does a psych degree add credibility to what he says?

                (the fact is that he is a psychologist who happens to be a Christian. Check it out! It is a matter of public record. He is a practicing psychologist specializing in Family Issues. He was on the staff of Childrens Hospital in California. He is an expert and best selling author on parenting and marriage. He works with theology experts and cites them in his studies. And he drives out of parking garages quite nicely.)

                If I get a degree in anthropology and start writing physics papers, citing the fact that I’m a ‘doctor,’ do I get more credit from the physics community?  Hell no . . .  it’s hero worship folks), the fact that you seem to uphold the Spongebob mania just shows me that you’re letting somebody else do your critical thinking for you.

                By the way that is exactly what I speak of by a waste of time. Someone is at a dinner party, they mention that there is a video that uses endearing children characters like Sponge Bob,(and others say Elmo, Mr. Green Jeans, Mickey Mouse, and Terrel Owens as well as Charo-just kidding) and the main agenda is for kids to except every lifestyle- and in that DVD the characters were telling the target audience that at 4 and 5 years old you can say that you favor boys or girls. Brilliant! So there are parents complaining that they buy this politically correct video confusing little kids. But the “journalist” thinks what Dobson is saying is that “Sponge Bob” is gay. The remark is not recorded, it is though reported- his word against Dobson. At FOF they have the phone ringing off the hook from the press asking if they could confirm that “Dobson says SpongeBob gay.” Of course no one in CS even knew about the remarks. So now Ruby you know the rest of the story. Although it reigns at Col pols it is a dead issue everywhere else. 

                I appreciate that you’re civil, but if you honestly believe that a little cartoon sponge is an evil cypher out to “indoctrinate your children,” then I must admit that I can’t take anything that you say seriously. 

                (see above) By the way I don’t think that Sponge Bob is gay- Now Gumby’s partner Pokey may be- what do you think?

                1. The other forum that I post on regularly is open to all. It only costs $10, which helps to keep the rif-raf out, and I would suggest that you read the rules before posting. You will find me in the Advanced Debate and Discussion forum. I would advice you not to go into FYAD. If you have any desire, just respond to this message. It is somethingawful.com

                2. Dark Horse is just suffering from a case of sour grapes. You’ve seen it and you’ll see it again – a conservative complaining about the liberal bias on this site.

                  I started posting here in May, and until the special session there was no shortage of conservative opinion being expressed here. Much of it revolved around the immigration debate, especially after the state Supreme Court tossed the immigration initiative off the ballot, but the special session effectively ended it.

                  A lot of the other debate centered on the Republican primary for governor, as Holtzman was still trying to get on the ballot; but he failed and that ended that. A lot of that debate was quite nasty – hard right cons vs “RINOs.” You can guess which side of that fence Dark Horse was on.

                  Something else happened in July that might explain the drop off in conservative posting (although obviously there’s no way of knowing) – Colorado Pols switched to a login system. Before that you could post under any name and use any email address to identify yourself with. I know some people were definitely posting under different names because their postings often shared writing style as well as viewpoint. Anyway, in order to log on you have to use a real email address, and those of us who were doing that had to have the new passwords emailed to us. If some of these far right conservatives (some of whom definitely came across as the paranoid type) were using fake email addresses and didn’t want to set up with a real one, then it was bye bye neocon. But I definitely noticed a drop off before that point. (Some liberal posters, like Patriot – think of him as a hippy Sir Robin – disappeared when the login system came on.)

                  1. At that time, I would occasionally post using my first name. I dont remember breaking the rules, but for some reason one day I could not log in. I chalked this up to a system glitch and moved on. Then I came back with a vengeance as Mr. Toodles. I assume it is with the same IP address so apparently that whole line is flawed.

                    On the subject of conservative posters, I hate the whole LIEBERAL bias attack. I dont see Gecko running away and FFF is back so there are at least a couple. Another Skeptic probably falls into that category too so take that Dark Horse (named after the bar in Boulder?). If the conservative posters are going to post like Chronic Truth they are certainly welcome here. I love a good debate.

                  2. …at least a bit of animosity towards conservatives- don’t you, Ari? I really hoped that a constructive debate was possible. I, being in the media, am disapointed in the shrillness in the posts. The back up, although fine on some of the answers that Mr. Toodles posted were as biased as someone coming from the other side, or through the lens of the Christian Worldview. They’re motive is that is where the research money came from. I think we all have a blind side. I worked for liberal causes the first years of my career in Denver including reporting about Rocky Flats, I worked on The Pena campaign, the Romer campaign, and I covered a lot of events in Denver. I came to Christ in 1993 and through that relationship I started to see things that I missed or even made fun of. Then I started reading, interviewing,discussing issues that mattered and quite frankly I started to realize that it wasn’t about what I thought that really mattered. It was the church that came to the rescue of the poor, the hungry, the addicted! It was the church that was compassionate and mostly they were the ones who gave their lives to Christ. It still is. In my coverage of ministries who were in Indonesia when the Tsunami struck- the church was the first responder. At the World Trade Center, and Katrina it was the church. I also rely on missionaries as news sources. They have no other motive than to report conditions. Some of them have died in service, some executed. But these are the ones who care for the least of these. So I came to this blog site to see how the compassionate liberal Democrats assessed what is happening in our country. The truth is that I found what I had heard and had thought, some people who were sour grapes when Al Gore lost the election. I saw people who would give kudos to a liar and a cheat who was in the White House, and I found people ridiculing his successor, even though he was elected twice. He got his Supreme Court Justices in, and he continues to guide this country in a Godly way. Sure he isn’t the mostarticulate guy in the world- but his actions speak loudly. So I wish you all the best. To me this blog is kind of a Dead Sea that has little circulation or influence. But it helps you all vent. 

                    1. I think I can comfortably say that all the liberal posters here welcome and encourage conservative opinions.

                      My own personal opinion is that a lot of very conservative individuals tend to not like hearing differing viewpoints are being debated on baseline issues (hence the love of Limbaugh and talk radio pundits that just affirm their pre-exisiting opinions over and over again) – and this disuaded many from posting on a neutral blog.

                      I also have to say, most liberals or at least Dems on this blog tend to defend their points more articulately and thoroughly.  Often, when challenged on some unavoidable points, a lot of conservative posters will just diappear into the ether.  That’s unfortunate, but it seems to be the trend.

                      The days of accepting “Clinton is an idiot!” and “liberals want to take all our money and give to the poor so my traditional family starves!” are over.  Empty rhetoric just doesn’t cut it, and it seems like fewer conservatives are either capable or willing to defend their ideas with anything more than recycled taglines flimsy scenarios.

                      That’s not a comment on anybody around ColoPols specifically, more like the internet in general.  I’ve seen the conservative blogs and forums – they’re bubbling with activity – but a lot tend to stay away from sites like this.

                    2. No way. Except maybe for the worst “you liberals suck” guys (who are rare but pop up on occassion – Sybil debuted on this very sight by calling me an idiot, and that was her entire post) you rarely see liberal animosity on this site. I do see plenty of passion on both sides and passion certainly leads to heated discussion, but animosity? What do you define as animosity?

                      I know that church groups do lots of good in the community and throughout the world, but some church groups and religioun-based organizations like FOF are mostly if not entirely about politics. The good work of one doesn’t make the work of the other beneficial, even if there’s crossover between these groups.

                      You sound like you’re going to give up on this post. I’m sorry to hear it, but if it’s under the impression that it’s because we liberals are “shrill” and/or “intolerant,” then it’s my opinion (and I say this without animosity) that you didn’t give either this site or all of us liberals a fair shake. Especially if you aren’t including conservative posts like the one from Gecko that appeared on this very thread among those that were “shrill.”

                3. I just want to say this – I for one welcome conservative posters to this site. But it’s my opinion that many are staying away not because of some “bias” (a tired bugaboo at this point in time) but because at this level, all the news for the Republican party is bad. If it wasn’t, I’d expect at least ONE posting to accuse Colo Pols of ignoring some potential good news. If this election was shaping up to be a Republican blowout because the Dems had nominated someone with a reputation of flip-flopping and who was seen to have contributed to a party split, I’d probably not come to this site either.

                  I have challenged conservative complainers in the past to post diaries expressing things that this site’s administrators are missing. It happens sometimes but excepting Another Skeptic’s diaries they often appear to have been started by Republican campaign staffers – like the “Perlmutter’s Secrets” thread started by MonkeyBusiness, who might as well post under the handle “O’Donnell For Congress.”

                  1. If I jumped to conclusions about what you think, Chronic.  Nothing I’d post on a blog is really of a personal nature, and I still do appreciate the fact that you don’t get overly defensive.

                    We’re nto going to agree on Dobson, or the other sources you cite – science isn’t legit if it’s coming from a religously motivated stance.  That larger scientific community doesn’t take it seriously for many reasons, which would be insane to list in the skinny post format the replies are reduce to here – but a degree and a profession carry little weight to me if they’re clearly not impartial commentators.

                    So far as SpongeBob – It’s a big step to say that a video about tolerance is actually indoctrinating kids into homosexuality.  That’s a religous viewpoint (i.e. kids are made gay by some sort of odious influence), it let’s face it, Dobson is most famous for things like SpongeBob.  Plus, he uses words like “pantwaist.”

                    That’s all I’m going to write – the skinny posts are too hard to read.

              1. I’m not an expert on anything. But I am versed in lots of subjects and I know where to look them up. A lot of the world’s problems are based on Biblical Illiterates. They call many fools for living their lives based on creationism and on The Golden Rule, or obeying the teachings of Christ from his parables or the Beatitudes.

                They think people who would call anything a sin because of guidelines or telling the difference between right or wrong are narrow minded and bigotted.

                And so- they get a different view about what being a Christian is. They have been hurt by religion- I know I have.

                I am not perfect, I am a sinner. I get angry, I have been pretty angry at most of you in the last few days. You have questioned people who are professional, reasonable, and are reaching out on a regular basis. They have credentials both in the secular world and believe that God is in everything, the architecture, the music, the articles, the politics, and in every discipline. Not only is he a part of it that all things came from Him.

                Many of you are gifted in debate and argument. Some are gifted in other areas. We have a distorted look at our world and the reasons why it was created. We are more than lucky mud. To be Biblical is to have an open mind. To throw it out is why I say that is narrow. I overstayed my welcome posting here, but I sincerly hope that all of you will find truth and that your posts will contain more than the personal attacks that I have witnessed, just because there are people who think differently than you.

                All the Best

                Chronic Truth 

                 

            2. I said that I didnt doubt their integrity, I doubt their motives which by logical extension is their credibility. If you dont want to self-identify as a religious person that is fine. It just seems to me that you have strong ties with the Christian right movement. That too is fine. I honestly dont care what your religion or your party affiliation are. First of all it is really none of my business and second of all I have bigger fish to fry. But when all of the articles you link to (except for, I think, one) have ties to overtly religious doctrine (read: Christian Doctrine) I assume that you are a Christian. In fact, you said that you work on a Christian radio program that is broadcast on the Armed Forces network, no? I am sorry, but I refuse to trust a source that has obvious religious overtones. It illustrates to me that they have an agenda to push, and that agenda is grounded in their specific brand of christian ideology. Here’s how I look at things: I like my coffee with lots of cream and sugar; My news from NPR, BBC, or Deutsche World; my hamburgers and steaks well done (I know, my gf used to work at del friscos, I embaress her when we go out); and my facts without any bias (I can detect both dem and repub bias).

              You are right, I did call Dobson an idiot, I think he is. Any psychologist worth their salt will agree. Here is a fact: Homosexuality is not a disorder. Let me repeat that, Homosexuality is not a disorder. Dobson’s contribution to the APA is that he is a punchline. Groups like Exodus International do nothing. In fact, didnt one of their spokespersons come back out of the closet recently(within the past couple of years)? You can not cure Homosexuality because it is not a disease. Just like you can not cure gender, or race.

              People came away from the stem cell debate thinking that civil discourse had occurred because I did not want to call you out on your sources, and the fact that you address few of my questions. I recognized early on that we were going to have to agree to disagree, because you trace your sources back to the bible, so why belabor the process?

              “You accused me of attacking Al Gore, when I said, I am grateful that he wasn’t the president during our hardest times.” Here is what you wrote: “Thank God that it was W. who was at the helm during 9-11. Who knows where your precious Gore would have us now!” I got the sarcasm, but you followed up with this quote when I called you out on it: “And you are right, we would not have been in the Middle East since Gore would have had us reduced to rubble.” That is an attack plain and simple. Like I said, I have been doing this a long time, so I am careful to admit my mistakes and be cognizant of what I write when someone catches me on it. 

              I have never ever lied on this blog. Everyone here knows where I go to school, my age, my gender, my congressional district, and my leanings. Maybe you should have been so forthcoming. As a journalist, I think you of all people would appreciate full disclosure. 

              Considering that I read, oh about 20 articles a day about this administration and everything that they are doing, yeah, you could say that I have a pipeline that others dont, but that is not to say that others are not more informed than I am or that I know more than anybody here. I just dont sleep and so I have more time than most to read up on what is going on in this world of ours. Of course I judge bush’s character and his (lack of) integrity. Is it unamerican of me to do so? I dont think I ever called christians bigots in any correspondance that I have had with you, but feel free to prove me wrong. Parents have the right to limit what their children watch, and since I have never seen one minute of Sponge Bob Squarepants, I have no idea as to its content. But this also goes back to what I said about families that are being ripped apart by porn. If your family unit is so weak that you fear a cartoon may be indoctrinating your son or daughter than you have bigger problems than that. Homosexuality has been around a lot longer than that cartoon, or any cartoon for that matter, and it will still be around after that cartoon is nothing but a faint memory.

              If you think I am narrow minded and unreasonable that’s fine. That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. Believe me, I have been called much worse. But I am a 25 year old male law student at Michigan State University who enjoys microbrews and imported beer, my opinions are my own, and I have no one to thank, or hate, but myself. You can think what you want of me it will not affect me in the least. I do not presume to tell you what to do with your journalistic piece, it is, in effect, your intellectual property. Just be sure to spell my name right. Its Toodles with two Os.

    2.   I don’t know much about my fellow Christian James Dobson, but I can tell you that Christianity is a religion for weaklings.  We are sinful, selfish, incomplete, and need divine intervention to make it through our lives.  We accomplish nothing on our own; anything that you might give us credit for is really the Holy Spirit working through us. 

        Jesus instituted a religion for the meek and lowly.  Somebody strong like Jimmy Swaggart or Pat Reobertson doesn’t need any help from any god.  I think Dr. Dobson doesn’t fit their mold. 

        I think if you heard Dr. Dobson talking privately to God before going to sleep(there’s something phony about public prayer,) I’m guessing you’d hear him apologize for his failings that day and ask, maybe demand more grace and more help to do the works God has set before him.  Authentic Christianity is also not a religion for the satisfied or proud.  We are often reminded of how we fall short, and its only because we’re forgiven that we are able to shed our guilt and culpability and go out into the world each day and try again. 

      1. Look, either we put “Dr.” in front of everyone’s name who’s gotten a dissertation published somewhere, or we don’t. I vote for the latter. OK, we all know now that Dobson got a PhD from USC. As RubyBlue pointed out, the Unabomber went to Harvard.

    3. Let’s be fair, here.  When it comes to Spongebob Squarepants, Dobson is guilty of committing the classic public speaker’s sin of allowing his attention getting step to stomp all over his main point.  It’s humorous, but anyone who has had to speak in public should be able to sympathize.

      In fact, the only problem I have with James Dobson is that he’s strayed from a religious role and into trying to influence politics.  When religious leaders like Dobson and Haggard decide they need a religious political party, both the religion and politics suffer.

      I can make my own decisions about how to live my life.  I don’t need a Congressman or a Senator for that.  I’d prefer my politicians to concentrate on providing jobs and running our infrastructure.

      1. What I can’t stand is when they get into politics but their businesses – and that’s what they are, businesses – get to keep their tax exemptions.

        Hugo Chavez is a wack job moron. His “devil” comment about Bush was stupid and laughable. The only thing MORE laughable would be if Congress actually did what Dobson seriously suggested, and convene to have a VOTE on a resolution that “Our President is NOT the devil!” Can’t you see how idiotic that would look, you Dobson cheerleaders?

        Excuse me: “Dr.” Dobson.

        1. It’s called Action, the G and L has one and keeps it’s foundation and fund. I know I am not as educated as y’all but if an issue is social and affects the family- a non-profet that protects the family should be able to fight for it. And if the Gay and Lesbian can fund it’s political agenda and lobbying why can’t anyone else? Toodles- tax law – where’s your tax law expert? Mine comes from a Christian Worldview so he probably isn’t worth his salt or light! 

          1. More like a non-profit that only endorses a very particular kind of family that they think is acceptable.  And, though I spend absolutely no time reseraching his operations, I’d guss that James Dobson and others make at least a decent living from his crusading. 

            Drawing comparison to Gay and Lesbian organizations isn’t quite valid – they’re secular organizations concerned with secular issues, mostly civil rights.  The goal of Dobson and company is to supress their civil rights as much as possible, in order to somehow abstractly ‘protect their families,’  which is all based on entirely religous principles.

            By the way, Christian world-views are fine and just as good as any other, but don’t confuse Dobson’s particular brand as being the same as all other Christians.  It’s not, and there are plenty of religious people that would vigorously disagree with most of what Dobson says and does.

            1. More like a non-profit that only endorses a very particular kind of family that they think is acceptable.  And, though I spend absolutely no time reseraching his operations, I’d guess that James Dobson and others make at least a decent living from his crusading.

              He is not paid at all. In fact his money comes from his books on traditional marriage and parenting. He is an unpaid volunteer.

              Drawing comparison to Gay and Lesbian organizations isn’t quite valid – they’re secular organizations concerned with secular issues, mostly civil rights.

              How convenient that is. There is no law that private donors can not give to C-4 action groups. Just for standing for traditional family values is not a religion it is a family advocacy group on public policy. 

                The goal of Dobson and company is to supress their civil rights as much as possible, (you have no basis to say that. Cite where FOF or FOF Action actually surpressed anyones rights.) in order to somehow abstractly ‘protect their families,’  which is all based on entirely religous principles. (you know how many single mothers Focus helps?
              Do you have any idea how non-traditional families come to Focus for help and get it?)

              By the way, Christian world-views are fine and just as good as any other, but don’t confuse Dobson’s particular brand as being the same as all other Christians. (What brand is that? Do you know what Dr. Dobson believes and fights for? Tell me who your sources are?)  It’s not, and there are plenty of religious people that would vigorously disagree with most of what Dobson says and does. (Religious maybe. Christian well he sells a lot of books, my friend.)

              1. I guess I could point out that those books sell because of his  minor celebrity status . . . so in effect he does increase his livelihood through the ministry and FOF.  Frankly, all these religous guru figures never claim any material gain and pinat themselves as tireless volunteers, but that’s rarely ever the case in my experience.

                As I said before, I haven’t done much looking into FOF’s whole operating agenda, but if it’s not a religously motivated group then I don’t know what it is.  Their principles, advocacy, and issues come straight from Christian fundamentalism as I understand it.  Just because it’s not specifically a ministry doesn’t mean that their every move and opinion isn’t guided by  their religous beliefs.  Are there a lot of Dobson followers who are agnostic, Jewish, Muslim, non-fundie, even Catholic?  I’d be curious to know . . .

                So far as them helping non-traditional families – From what I know of this it generally involves helping to teach gay people that they have a sickness or social disorder and helping to reprogram them into proper god-fearing heterosexuals.  I won’t devle into the issue too much – but i think that’s hilarious, sad, misguided, and flat out wrong for a laundary list of reasons.  That’s not help, it’s guilt and dogmatic social engineering to fit a religous view of sexuality. 

                I don’t know the specifics of Dobson’s religion, but I do know plenty of Christians that don’t Dobson.  He certainly does not speak for all Christians, and I don’t think I even need to argue to support that statement it’s so obvious – but I will if you really want to hear it.

  3. Last I checked, a contingent of Democrats defended Bush.  Not sure where the Republicans are.  Perhaps they forgot that Chavez wasn’t just talking to them?

    The Dems done me proud.

  4. Most of you on this post know that I am a Republican from Ft. Morgan who will be voting Democrat this year.  Tom Friedman’s article today only reinforces my decision to abandon the GOP in 2006.

    September 27, 2006
    Op-Ed Columnist
    Fill ’Er Up With Dictators
    By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
    Are you having fun yet?

    What’s a matter? No sense of humor? You didn’t enjoy watching Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez addressing the U.N. General Assembly and saying of President Bush: “The devil came here yesterday, right here. It smells of sulfur still today.” Many U.N. delegates roared with laughter.

    Oh well then, you must have enjoyed watching Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad breezing through New York City, lecturing everyone from the U.N. to the Council on Foreign Relations on the evils of American power and how the Holocaust was just a myth.

    C’mon then, you had to at least have gotten a chuckle out of China’s U.N. ambassador, Wang Guangya, trying to block a U.N. resolution calling for the deployment of peacekeeping troops to Sudan to halt the genocide in Darfur. I’m sure it had nothing to do with the fact that the China National Petroleum Corporation owns 40 percent of the Sudan consortium that pumps over 300,000 barrels of oil a day from Sudanese wells.

    No? You’re not having fun? Well, you’d better start seeing the humor in all this, because what all these stories have in common is today’s most infectious geopolitical disease: petro-authoritarianism.

    Yes, we thought that the fall of the Berlin Wall was going to unleash an unstoppable wave of free markets and free people, and it did for about a decade, when oil prices were low. But as oil has moved to $60 to $70 a barrel, it has fostered a counterwave — a wave of authoritarian leaders who are not only able to ensconce themselves in power because of huge oil profits but also to use their oil wealth to poison the global system — to get it to look the other way at genocide, or ignore an Iranian leader who says from one side of his mouth that the Holocaust is a myth and from the other that Iran would never dream of developing nuclear weapons, or to indulge a buffoon like Chávez, who uses Venezuela’s oil riches to try to sway democratic elections in Latin America and promote an economic populism that will eventually lead his country into a ditch.

    For a lot of reasons — some cyclical, some technical and some having to do with the emergence of alternative fuels and conservation — the price of crude oil has fallen lately to around $60 a barrel. Yes, in the long run, we want the global price of oil to go down. But we don’t want the price of gasoline to go down in America just when $3 a gallon has started to stimulate large investments in alternative energies. That is exactly what OPEC wants — let the price fall for a while, kill the alternatives, and then bring it up again.

    For now, we still need to make sure, either with a gasoline tax or a tariff on imported oil, that we keep the price at the pump at $3 or more — to stimulate various alternative energy programs, more conservation and a structural shift by car buyers and makers to more fuel-efficient vehicles.

    “If Bush were the leader he claims to be, he would impose an import fee right now to keep gasoline prices high, and reduce the tax rate on Social Security for low-income workers, so they would get an offsetting increase in income,” argued Philip Verleger Jr., the veteran energy economist.

    That is how we can permanently break our oil addiction, and OPEC, and free ourselves from having to listen to these petro-authoritarians, who are all so smug — not because they are educating their people or building competitive modern economies, but because they happen to sit on oil.

    According to Bloomberg.com, in 2005 Iran earned $44.6 billion from crude oil exports, its main source of income. In the same year, the mullahs spent $25 billion on subsidies to buy off the population. Bring the price of oil down to $30 and guess what happens: All of Iran’s income goes to subsidies. That would put a terrible strain on Ahmadinejad, who would have to reach out to the world for investment. Trust me, at $30 a barrel, the Holocaust isn’t a myth anymore.

    But right now, Chávez, Ahmadinejad and all their petrolist pals think we are weak and will never bite the bullet. They have our number. They know that Mr. Bush is a phony — that he always presents himself as this guy ready to make the “tough” calls, but in reality he has not asked his party, the Congress, the people, or U.S. industry to do one single hard thing to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

    Mr. Bush prattles on about spreading democracy and freedom, but history will actually remember the Bush years as the moment when petro-authoritarianism — not freedom and democracy — spread like a wildfire and he did nothing serious to stop it.

    1. that in today’s Gazette it is reported that the parent company of all 7/11 stores told Citgo gas to go take a flying leap. They dropped the gasoline brand from all of their stores. (Citgo gives ‘ol Chavez much of his income.)

      I used to avoid 7/11 stores because they are owned by a Japanese company but I will now probably start to use them again. Kinda like a counter protest……….

      1. I think if you really hold to your beliefs you should act on them.  Personally, my belief is that I seek the lowest price,  but then I’m one of those seedy RINO business conservatives. 

        Perhaps you should take it to it’s logical conclusion and not drive at all.  After all, the roads are owned and operated by those dirty socialists at CDOT.

    2. Russia under Putin is putting together an enormous and effective government-based oil cartel.  He is not doing deals with BP, Exxon, etc. he is doing them with Germany, China and Iran.  Bush is powerless to stop it.  We have no military to intimidate Russia or to reassure Europe (we’re shutting down our bases there and sending the troops south), and if we do anything to seriously tick off the Chinese they can destroy our financial markets.  The only sphere of influence we have left is with militarily weak third-world countries.  Turns out we needed allies after all, and the ones we had were mature enough societies they didn’t need Sunday school lectures on morality.

      1. Damn that’s grim . . . but I’d say that’s kind of the “Risk” version of geo-politics right now – a little rash, a little simple. 

        First of all, it overestimates Putin and Russia’s capabilities.  They’re not looking for a takeover of world markets, nor are they capable.  The country can’t even provide sevices for the bulk of its population, so they’re not looking to upend the balance of power.  Russia is probably the most resource rich area left on the planet, but they’re underdeveloped that they can’t extract most of what they have.  They need Western cooperation and corporations to get involved at one point or another.  Several of my family members work for BP – the oil industry doesn’t see Russia as an isolationist cartel builder.

        Secondly, the Chinese threat has been way over-hyped for years.  There is a ton to say about this, but the most important thing to keep in mind is that China is the largest financeer of American debt, meaning they’re the ones buying all our treasury bonds.  They don’t want a strong US economy so that they’re paid back in full and we continue to be strong and viable trading partners.

        At any rate, we get most of our oil from Canada, uh, Venezuela, and ourselves, and we just discovered a reserve the size of Alaska’s North Slope in the gulf of Mexico.  There’s some truth to what you mention, but this resource war business always seems pretty alarmist and goofy to me.

        It reminds me of the peak oil fanatics who proclaimed that we’d hit peak oil in 2000 and the world be in chaos over crude prices by 2010.  People wrote books about it . . . seems like we’re alright.  It takes catastrophe to shake up the world scene, not the usual combination of realist/internationalist politics that drive the international balance.

        1. That Gulf of Mexico oil is extremely problematic.  It will take revolutions in science and engineering to bring it to market. Earliest estimates is ten years or more from now. 

          China is already using our debt against us, to enable them to generate more debt from us; They have demonstrated the ability to keep their currency low, our currency high, and that we really can’t do anything about it. They don’t need no stinkin tariffs to keep our stuff out, and we buy their stuff no problem. Works for them, not so great for us, and Comparative Advantage assumes you have something to trade; our shirts for their shoes so to speak.  What do we have to trade now? I think the rising differential shows what we trade for their shoes is consumer debt. The Economist had one of their end of magazine graphs on foreign currency reserves about a month ago.  China has 6 or 7 times our reserves, mostly in dollars.  They indeed own us.  Sucking money out of our economy drives U.S. wages down, and leads to flat real estate markets and a higher forclosure rate.  For them, our problems look like a building boom and a rising middle-class.  We used to have that. Imagine the problems of our present only more so. 

          Russia is a different story altogether.  They have no intention of playing second fiddle to us and have said as much.  Is Putin gunning for us? Maybe, maybe not, but he is certainly willing to exploit our mistakes to their advantage.  I’m certain he wants a future for Russia very different than their experience of the last 16 years.  We showed no great concern for them and their hungry desperate old-age pensioners, and I expect him to return the treatment.

          1. That when the China leader came to the US last time he went via Seattle as a first stop.  Tony Blair leaves DC and heads to CA to cut deal with Schwarzenegger on green house gas emissions.  When oil was $30 Bush could look in to Putin’s eyes and see a good man.  With $60+ oil, natural gas supplies that are massive — and ownership of a growing number of western European energy companies…you can tell that something ain’t right in OK corral.  We’ve damn near lost any edge we have in world affairs.  Thanks for the post FMR — and Xeno.

          2. So you read The Economist – that magazine is all I ever hear quoted about these pressing international econ concerns!  Just kidding, but they do seem to run a never-ending stream of articles regarding the eminent demise of US economic power (you think the Brits are rooting against us?).  I love The Economist, but keep in mind that no matter how good the reporting and writing is, they need to have some sort of urgency in their topics, both writers and publishers.  I’ve read many articles indicating that China will overheat and the growth will slow, and others that completely write off the threat.  I don’t know econ well enough to credit one over the other, but I generally discriminate against the idea that China is going to run is into the ground in the near future.  It’s all very speculative.

            That being said, you make good points, but it’s an entirely realist approach to the international scene.  Without getting too complicated about currency balances and such, as I’m likely to completley screw up what I mean to say, consider that a healthy US economy is valuable to other countries as well.  Nobody’s foreign policy is based around the thesis of locking us out of prosperity, they’re just clammering for as much ground as they can get.  China in particular is feeling the oil pinch way worse than we are.  Trade leverage is good, but not too much.  So far as foreign interests stepping into too much ownership of western energy production – Congress has regulated to block this sort of thing (I believe against China), and they’ll do it again as needed. 

            So far as Russia – I don’t take Putin and his posturing too seriously.  I guess you’ll have to take my word for it, but a close relation is in a Russian wastland as we speak supervising exploration and development plans in Russia for BP.  I think you’d agree that Russia isn’t capable of the kind of rebound they’ll need to actually start going toes with us on resource issues.  You’re right that he won’t cut us an ounce of slack – but they’re no realistic threat.  Either way, Even if China is swinging a big stick and Russia is willing to play some hard ball, I don’t see the two as indicating imminent crisis.  As I said, that’s a hardcore power politics approach, and I just don’t lend as much weight to that viewpoint with the level of globalization we have right now.

            The oil in the gulf is coming out eventually – they’ll make it financially feasable.  They used to say the same things about all the sandy oil deposits all over Canada and elsewhere, but the technology caught up quick and it’s more than extractable now.  One benefit of the new high barrel price is the corporations are willing to invest in what they need to do to get to the remaining reserves.  Ten years isn’t a bad estimate considering all the infrastructure and such that they’ll have to lay down to really get production going – that’s pretty timely by petro industry standards.  Back in the 70s lots of people said that the North Slope of Alaska couldn’t be done at a profit so, I don’t subscribe to the skepticism when it comes to extraction.

            1. You were just another pretty face!  Now I find out you have a brain, too?  I’d love to debate you on a couple of issues but it’s time for bed.  Have your people call my people tomorrow.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Gabe Evans
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

53 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!